A good manager is very much like a good orchestra maestro.

A maestro does not have to play every instrument in the orchestra. More often than not, he usually is not even the best musician in the orchestra at whatever he plays. As maestro, he is not valued for his playing abilities—in fact, he is the one person in the orchestra who is supposed to make no sound during a concert.

As members of the audience see the curtain rise, they may be thinking that the maestro’s work begins when the music begins. This is an illusion that a good maestro works hard to create. In reality, when he taps his baton on the podium and raises his arms to ready the orchestra, the maestro’s work is nearly finished.

Well before the concert, the maestro selects the musicians and seats them according to technical ability and musicality. He also chooses the music to be played, bearing in mind the ability of his musicians and the tastes of his audience. As a result, the various pieces in the program will, perhaps, present a theme or build a particular mood.

The maestro then assembles his orchestra and conducts numerous practices with it. He works with individuals to extract their best performances and minimize their technical shortcomings. He works with sections to blend their separate tones into integrated chords. He then works to smooth out the natural competitive urges of the various sections to achieve harmony, balance and movement. In other words, a good maestro combines the efforts of many individual musicians to produce a real symphony. But, that’s not all.

A good maestro also is the head “roadie” for the orchestra. He makes sure that the orchestra has everything it needs to make beautiful music. Likewise, he ensures that the audience has everything it needs to enjoy the orchestra. He clearly understands that good music can only be played and enjoyed when there are no distractions and the proper mood is set.

When the concert is presented, the maestro sets the tempo and leads. He makes small adjustments to the music during the performance to allow for the moment—measuring the emotional response of both the audience and the orchestra. He allows the soloists and ensembles to play and shine as they move in and out of the spotlight. Like a magician’s assistant, he adds small touches of showmanship first here, then there, to draw the audience’s attention to the “right” spots. And, ultimately, when the performance concludes, a good maestro stands out of the way, unselfishly letting the orchestra take their bows—and leading the applause to make certain that the audience knows where the real “bravos” should be directed.

A good maestro is not known by a single performance. He distinguishes himself over time by the care and quality he brings to all the performances he directs. Good musicians want to play for him—and good audiences are impatient for more performances from the orchestras he directs.

He loves and respects his work, and it shows in all the things he does. He inspires those who work with him and shares his understanding and appreciation of the music with them. He teaches what he knows, learns from experience and is open to learning from others. The goal of a good maestro is that the next performance will be the best one ever.

What a pleasure it is to play for him. MT

This 4th installment in a special series is the subject of Bob’s keynote address at MARTS 2008.

Businesses depend on processes functioning properly to achieve desired results and generate revenues to sustain the business, resulting in a return on an investment or a profit from doing the business. These “processes” can be human work methods and procedures, transformation stages during product flow, equipment-driven systems that produce a useable output, etc. When these processes cease to operate, momentarily stall or run inefficiently, the business is negatively impacted.

More commonly in business, costs increase, revenues decline and profits turn into losses when equipment breaks down or when human errors occur. Maintaining equipment and processes for optimum reliability is essential for competitive success. The more we ignore the value of maintenance and reliability, the greater our economic losses.

Generally, a maintenance department alone cannot make equipment and processes reliable. Other people and departments have a direct— or an indirect—effect on reliability. Senior management, corporate executives, operations management and staff, equipment operators, spare parts storerooms, spare parts purchasing, spare parts suppliers, training, engineering, procedure writers, product and process quality, and outside utilities are a just a few of the influencers.

When something fails, however, it is typically the maintenance (repair) organization that springs into action to restore equipment and process operation. Meanwhile, the other previously mentioned “influencers” (if not directly involved in the problem resolution efforts) are engaged in overhead activities while the process is NOT generating revenues. During process downtime, the business is NOT making money, NOT generating revenues, NOT posting profits. Even worse, it actually is LOSING money because of all the unplanned costs (labor, parts and supplies) and the extra efforts that interrupt the normal work processes and jobs of people who cannot do their work. Unscheduled downtime is a financial drain and the time that is lost NEVER can be recovered. Sure, people and processes can work harder, faster and extended hours to make up production, but the original “planned” time is LOST forever.

Unscheduled downtime is a THIEF that steals planned, scheduled, productive time that NEVER will be returned. Time is money. Consequently, LOST TIME really is LOST MONEY.

A racing example
Think of unrecoverable time this way. While leading at Daytona—the first race of the season—by a 10- second margin, a NASCAR Race team (let’s call them the “Car 54 team”) experiences unscheduled downtime when their car hits the wall coming out of turn two. A caution flag is waved and the other race cars slow down. The damaged car limps back to pit road for unscheduled repairs. While all the other cars make laps around the track, the damaged one is not moving—it is being repaired.

After the officials clean up the track debris (unscheduled cleanup), the race returns to “green flag” conditions and cars quickly reach track speed. Meanwhile, Car 54 is still on pit road with the team beating, banging, pulling and duct-taping it back together. After the race has continued for 20 more laps, Car 54 rolls down pit road and gets back on the track—not a pretty picture but it’s running.

The time Car 54 spent in the pits is LOST time (track position) that NEVER can be made up. Although it was running again and finished the race, it was still behind the rest of the field by more than 20 laps. Damage to the $300,000 vehicle and the time and money required to make it race-worthy for the next scheduled race caused costs to skyrocket.

Car 54 didn’t just lose the race. It also lost top-10 prize money, sponsors were sorely disappointed and damages amounted to $150,000 in repair costs. These repairs set the team’s planned shop schedule back about a week, leading to huge amounts of overtime to catch up. Furthermore, several team members were injured during the pit road repairs, requiring medical attention plus some recovery time off from work.

The Car 54 team realized its “problem” at Daytona COULD happen again at a future race—or races. The team had several choices: 1) suck it up and prepare for the inevitable wrecks, asking for a bigger maintenance and repair budget; 2) determine the cause(s) of the problem and develop a countermeasure to prevent it from ever happening again; 3) improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their pit road and shop repairs. Or, they could blend all three of these choices into a solution.

Discovering the root cause of Car 54 hitting the wall had nothing to do with the car itself, or the driver’s actions (other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time). The team determined that the slower, soon-to-be-lapped Car 13 had a right-front tire blowout, causing it to violently swerve to the right, just as Car 54 was passing on the right. Car 13 barely clipped the rear bumper of Car 54, causing it to pitch to the left. The Car 54 driver over-corrected and grazed the wall with his vehicle’s entire right side. OUCH!

Given those causal conditions, the Car 54 team also realized several other important things: 1) they operated with a fixed budget already impacted by the wreck, and neither owners nor sponsors had additional money to put into maintenance and repairs; 2) “stuff happens” that can’t be easily prevented, but such a case, the driver has to avoid passing slower cars on the outside in the turns; 3) the team had to improve how it repairs damages at the track.

Yes, the driver of Car 54 could have been FIRED and/or the driver of Car 13 could have been banned from racing. Unfortunately, these actions would NOT have addressed the causes of the problem and the business losses that were incurred. Organizationally, the team knew it would have to find ways to be more resource-effi- cient AND more effective.

A power-gen example
On February 26, 2008, at 1:09 p.m., a massive power failure slammed South Florida. Two nuclear power plants at Turkey Point (Units 3 and 4) and a natural gas power plant shut down and up to 15 other power plants were affected. More than 900,000 customers of three power companies —the equivalent of nearly 2 million people—were without power for several hours that day. A total of about 2700 megawatts (MW) of electricity and 4000 MW of load were impacted.

Turkey Point Unit 4 was down for five days and Unit 3 was down for seven days. These 12 days of power plant downtime, widespread outage, repair costs, lost generating capacity, expense of purchased electricity from other suppliers, reduced customer revenues, damages incurred and missing profits NEVER can be recovered. They are lost forever!

The Florida outage had a monumental business impact on the power company. Utility revenues dropped; daily profits turned into losses; stock prices declined by 3.7%; state, municipal and Federal tax receipts declined; repair costs increased; overhead costs continued without the supporting revenue; and untold consumer damages resulting from the event have yet to be determined. Early damage reports, though, reflected a high volume of traffic accidents because of inoperable traffic signals. Businesses had to shut down and send employees home. Restaurants and grocery stores closed and food spoiled. Countless other commercial, industrial and residential customers experienced varying degrees of damages and losses. The problem extended beyond Florida, too. Even as far away as Texas, one company had to import power from Mexico during the crisis.

In the months since, power experts have explained that automatic safeguards in the electric distribution grid worked as they were supposed to work. This, they note, is what prevented power plant damage and the type of far-reaching outage the U.S. and Canada experienced in August 2003, when the entire Northeast went black. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the multimillion dollar cost of the February 26th Florida power outage has yet to be determined. In fact, the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council will be taking “several months” to analyze the events.

The reported cause of the Florida outage is being cast in terms of “human error”. An employee with “significant tenure” appears to have disabled two levels of relay protection during the diagnosis of a malfunctioning disconnect switch at a substation in West Miami. While making the required measurements, a circuit shorted and cascaded to other parts of the system. The power company says “simultaneous removal of two levels of protection was contrary to its standard procedures and practices.”

The power company has several choices, much like those of the Car 54 race team: 1) suck it up and prepare for future, inevitable power outages, asking for a bigger maintenance and repair budget; 2) determine the cause(s) of the problem and develop countermeasures to prevent it from happening again; 3) improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its unscheduled power outage recovery and repairs. Or, the company could blend all three of these choices into a solution.

With calls for the firing of the person who reportedly set off the outage, the power company put the employee in question on administrative leave. But hold on! While this individual may have contributed to the true cause(s) of the event, he now has the knowledge of countermeasures to prevent such a catastrophic chain of events from occurring in the future. This employee was closer to the cause(s) of the problem than anyone else in the world! Thus, there are invaluable opportunities here to learn from “mistakes”—as an individual employee and as an organization trying to improve performance.

Were the “standard procedures and practices” up-todate and accurate? Was the employee trained and qualified in the specific procedures? Was he assigned to perform a task based on his “significant tenure” (experience) without regard to the proper procedures? Was this truly a maintenance- induced failure? Could a system be devised to allow the type of switch inspection and still offer the required level system of protection?

FIRING an employee might appease the media and public, but would it really do anything else? The actual “cause(s)” of the multi-million-dollar business losses still would exist—lurking just below the surface, only to happen again when least expected. In racing terms, the car will hit the wall again and the new driver might not be the cause.

What about our own operations?
If we can’t eliminate all of the causes of a problem, what can we do to minimize the damages? Maintenance and training budgets could be in jeopardy once damage has occurred and downtime losses turn into revenue losses, and, in turn, budgets get cut. Oh no! Now we have to do more with less, or do less with less. Car 54, where are you? MT

Resources used for this column
Florida Power & Light news releases
Platts.com: Electric Power News
Energy Assurance Daily: U.S. Department of Energy
Associated Press reports, various publications
Nuclear Energy Institute press releases
Miami Herald (Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News) reports

Effective management of people always involves training. This training can be as simple as one on one in the field or as formal as training in a classroom setting. The hardest part of the training management responsibility is determining when to train and what is the best training method.

One proven approach requires the assessment of the core competencies of a maintenance operation. Core competencies are those sets of activities in which you are expert. Brooks Brothers doesn’t make its own suits anymore—it contracts out this work to companies that specialize in fine tailoring. Brooks Brothers realizes its core competency is selling suits, not making them.

Determining core competencies
Once upon a time, your maintenance department’s core competency(ies) might have included quality millwright work or electrical troubleshooting. If a reduction in your workforce has occurred (for whatever reason), a manager should make sure that the employees who remain can perform these core functions. Conversely, perhaps your department was only mediocre at HVAC or electronics repair, but still had plenty of employees who could adequately stumble though this work. Now, though, with fewer workers on hand, you may need to engage an HVAC contractor or send failed electronic boards to the manufacturer for repair (or simply replace them with new ones).

Remember: Contractors can tide an organization over in technical areas and consultants can provide training to bring remaining workers up to speed on original core competencies. Contract out those services that are furthest away from your core competencies.

Skills checklist
A good skill checklist is one way of assessing the basic need for a skill. This list is best derived from a review of equipment that has to be maintained at your site. Supervisors or advanced maintenance workers should look at a representative sample of the equipment, at the site, and a make note of the skills that might be required to repair or maintain it. The lists of skills should then be combined to provide a master list of all skills required at the site.

Next, each item on the list should be assessed for relative need, frequency of usage and the number of employees covered under this training. The course list is categorized into basic maintenance skills, electrical, instrument and mechanical. The Relative Need should be rated from 1 (for low) to 5 (for high). The Frequency of Use should be rated from 1 (for seldom), to 5 (for often). In addition, some qualification of the number of persons that are covered also should be made.

You should then rank your training needs by relative importance. All skills that have a Relative Need and a Frequency of Use of 4 or greater should be addressed immediately. Skills that rank at 2 or 3 in both categories should be put off or budgeted for a later date. No attempt should be made to train in skills lower than 2 in both categories.

Payback for your training dollar
The cost of the training may be prohibitive if you train in all the areas of high need and usage. You must next determine whether or not to train employees in a specific skill. Consider these categories:

• Skills that require a long time to train but are not used very often—Activities or skills in this category provide the least return for the training dollar and should probably be farmed out to a contractor or to the service department of the equipment vendor.
• Skills that are used more often and only require a quick training course—Money can be invested in acquiring these skills and a return on that investment can be expected.
• There may be some return for skills that take a short time to train and will be used only a few times a year—You should, however, be concerned about skill retention for tasks that are not used very often. Skills that require practice, such as welding, fall into this category. It may only take a week or so to teach basic welding, but the work performed may be substandard if this skill is not practiced regularly.
• Skills that are used often but take a long time to acquire should probably be among the required skills for entry into the maintenance department—You may have to face the situation and provide the training if these skills are lacking in your current workforce.

Cross craft training
A cross craft effort is the process of training maintenance employees in specific skills that go beyond the traditional trade or craft lines. The advantage of this approach is that particular jobs that historically require more than one craft now are performed by just one person, saving time and money.

A typical example is the change-out of a small motor. Traditionally, a change-out could require an electrician to disconnect the motor leads and a millwright or mechanic to disconnect the coupling, physically replace the motor and perform the alignment. The electrician then would return to the job, reconnect the motor leads, check and possibly change rotation. At this point, the mechanic or millwright would be able to connect the coupling halves to complete the job.

In fact, no more than one individual should be required on this example job at any time, but trade distinctions often require the close scheduling of appropriate crafts. If the loss of this motor created downtime, both individuals would remain at the job site, performing only their particular job functions as needed. In trade-craft-dominated work environments, this situation may be even further complicated. The requirement for an operating engineer to physically remove and replace the motor also may exist.

In a cross craft effort, individuals would receive additional training—beyond the normal skills required for their craft. A mechanic or millwright would be trained to electrically disconnect and reconnect motors. In turn, an electrician would be trained in coupling disassembly and reassembly, as well as alignment methods. After this training, both individuals would be qualified to perform the entire job alone. On the other hand, in many cases, cross craft training can take the form of spot training, designed to equip an employee with a critical skill; i.e., alignment, motor connection, welding and cutting.

The advantage to the company in a cross craft effort comes with the ease of scheduling work. The advantage to the worker is usually an incremental increase in pay for the additional skills learned and used.

Although cross craft opportunities can vary greatly from location to location, the following job areas are typical candidates:

• Jobs combining electrical and mechanical skills (motor change-outs, some instrument modifications)
• Jobs requiring electrical/mechanical and simple welding skills (installing conduit/pipe supports and running conduit/pipe)
• Pipefitting work (pipefitter and welder are separate craft skills)
• Minor machining operations (turning down, reaming and broaching)
• Oxyacetylene operations (cutting, trimming, heating)
• Machine lubrication (refilling after rework)

Identifying potential gains
Once possible training areas have been identified, the company can determine potential productivity gains and financial savings to be achieved from a cross craft effort. The financial savings can be shared with craft employees through negotiated wage increases. This effort takes the following form (in order):

1. Interviews are conducted with supervisors to identify friction areas.
2. Completed work history is reviewed for friction areas and these jobs are tabulated.
3. A study is conducted as to how these jobs could be performed under a multi-skill arrangement.
4. Estimates are made of hours that could have been saved through a multi-skill effort on specific jobs. A calculation of labor cost savings is performed.
5. Tabulation is made of any productivity improvements due to reduced clock hours of downtime. The cost of lost production is calculated.

Possible wage increases now can be determined by examining all accumulated information, and negotiations with workforce representatives can begin.

Remember
Skills assessment and training development are essential in building an effective maintenance program. An organized and structured approach can meet the current requirements of a facility and develop a strong foundation for the future. MT

Michael V. Brown is president of New Standard Institute, a training and consulting firm specializing in industrial maintenance, based in Milford, CT. Telephone: (203) 783-1582; e-mail: mvbrown@newstandardinstitute.com A catalog of computer-based training programs and books authored by Brown and his colleagues, along with a schedule

Founded in 1992, Aqua Drill International (ADI) offers worldwide specialized industrial pipe, exchanger, tube, vessel and tank cleaning services to the Refining, Chemical, Petrochemical, Power, Pulp & Paper, Municipal and other industries. According to the company, based on years of development and continuous improvement in design and operational experience, ADI Engineering offers some of the most advanced high-pressure water-jet cleaning technologies available in the marketplace. These proprietary, patented and patent-pending products are manufactured under strict quality control and used exclusively by Aqua Drill companies. All ADI cleaning technologies are designed to the highest safety standards to eliminate “hands-on” operations and personnel exposure.

• Suitable for the most complicated cleaning applications, Aqua Milling® Process can reach NACE No. 5/SSPC-SP 12 WJ1 level cleanliness.
• More than 180 different customized Aqua Milling® cleaning tools are available for remote controlled removal of hardest incrustation from internal piping in sizes from I.D. ¾ inch to I.D. 12 ft. ADI has successfully removed various buildups and plugs of extreme hard needle coke, polymers, and calcium carbonate, soft tar, sulphur, calcium, styrene, nickel, nylon, green and black liquor and other materials.
• Aqua Milling can clean pipe systems with multiple 90° or 180° elbow configurations, up to 600 feet in length. (In special cases, up to 1500 feet in length have been cleaned with minimal entry points.) Flare stacks and chimneys have been cleaned climbing up to 300 feet vertical from a ground entry point with no support from the top.
• PIO-Aqua Milling products can be used for cleaning of small- to large-diameter piping systems that have to remain in pressurized service and “on-line” during the cleaning operation.
• Aqua Milling is capable of cleaning tubing as small as I.D. ¾”, reaching IRIS and Eddie current inspection levels and saving the destruction of exchangers. (For cleaning very small heat exchanger tubing, ADI has developed the Aqua Lancer.)
• The Aqua Rover™ is a revolutionary high-pressure water-jet cleaning technology development. This product has the capability to clean large-diameter pipe with steep inclines or vertical sections on a distance of up to 6000 feet from one entry point. The self-propelled robotic equipment utilizes Aqua Milling® jet cleaning heads designed to remove coating, corrosion, tuberculation, hard scale deposits, calcium carbonate and/or zebra mussels.
• Aqua Rover has been used for cleaning of I.D. 10 ft. pipe in Louisiana. In Germany and Switzerland, ADI has successfully cleaned I.D. 12 ft. pipe with steep inclines and vertical sections in mountainous terrain for hydro power plants. MT
  

Aqua Drill International
Prairieville, LA

What production operation isn’t full of mechanical seals? This industry expert shows you why it’s so critical for them to be specified correctly.

To improve the performance of any piece of equipment requires a complete understanding of its operation and the effect on its component parts. The definition of mechanical reliability is the probability that a component, device or system will perform its prescribed service without failure for a given time when operated correctly in a specified environment.

A component part is the smallest part that would normally be replaced. A device, such as a pump, compressor, agitator, mixer, etc., is made up of many component parts. A system, such as a process plant, refinery, power plant, ship, etc. is made up of many devices. Thus, when a critical component fails, it can have a tremendous economic impact, not only on the device in which it is installed, but on an entire system. A mechanical seal is just such a component. The major causes for seal failure on a pump are a result of the following conditions:

1. Operating seals near the boiling point of the liquids being sealed
2. Operating seals in poor mechanical environments

Identifying the cause for failure will lead to significant savings for the user.

As the shaft of a pump begins to rotate, a small fluid film develops between the seal faces along with unwanted frictional heat from the seal surfaces in sliding contact. If the amount of frictional heat developed at the seal faces cannot be removed, then the liquid being sealed will flash to a gas or begin to carbonize. Developed frictional heat at the seal faces must be removed.

Each contacting seal has an operating envelope, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The upper limit is determined by wear. More importantly, a seal must operate at a temperature to prevent boiling of the liquid sealed. Operation within the envelope will result in excellent seal life.

Operating near boiling point
Common cryogenic fluids such as argon, nitrogen and oxygen are stored near their atmospheric pressure and pumped near their normal boiling points. These are the most common cryogenic fluids used in industry. The fluids are delivered by over-the-road trucks to industrial users and hospitals. Each truck uses a single stage centrifugal pump driven by a hydraulic motor to move these liquids from the truck to the storage tanks. One fleet operator with 25 trucks began an aggressive program to reduce failures and improve equipment reliability. An analysis of the operation’s seal life and repair costs is shown in Table I. Not only were the maintenance costs excessive, there were also financial losses when deliveries could not be made.

Upon reviewing the seals that failed in this cryogenic service, it became clear that at certain times during the operation of the pump the fluid at the seal faces was flashing and extreme wear and heat checking occurred on the mating ring in the seal assembly. Further complicating the problem was the cool-down period for the equipment. Both the pump and piping had to be cooled down to the liquid gas temperature. Any rise in product temperature could have led to the pump cavitating and the seal running dry.

To be successful in operating near the boiling point of the fluid being sealed requires a seal that eliminates the frictional heat from the sliding services in contact. A seal that is in a controlled environment will allow the liquid to turn to a gas without violent flashing. The properties of the cryogenic fluids to be sealed are given in Table II.

The success from using a non-contacting seal can be explained by reviewing the vapor pressure curve for nitrogen shown in Fig. 2. In this case, nitrogen that is being transported by tank truck is normally at 30 psig/2bar and -320 F/-190 C. When using a contacting seal, the temperature increase at the seal faces is sufficient to start the boiling process at pumping pressure. In an uncontrolled environment such as a contacting seal, continuous flashing damages the seal faces, shortening seal life. During operation of the non-contacting seal design, the temperature rise at the seal faces is only a few degrees, eliminating violent flashing of the cryogenic liquid.

The savings associated with improved seal reliability for the 25 trucks in this cryogenic delivery fleet operation are shown in Table I. These savings were substantial enough to allow the purchase of a new tank truck.

Operating in a poor mechanical environment
A poor mechanical environment requires a seal to move an abnormal amount during operation. The motion transmitted to a seal can be angular or axial. The most common cause of angular motion is piping stresses transferred to the pump casing. This type of loading will result in premature seal failure.

In one case, a power plant experienced a seal failure every three months. Measurements taken on the pump casing at full operating pressure and temperature indicated 0.016” of deflection. This, in turn, distorted the seal chamber and mating face.

The estimated angular distortion or out-of-squareness at the seal face was greater than 0.012”. The shaft was turning at 1800 RPM. This meant that the seal had to flex 0.012” of travel 1800 times/per minute.

The solution to this problem was to add an expansion joint in the piping in the suction line to the pump, which would eliminate the high load being transferred to the pump casing. Clearly, this failure had nothing to do with the design of the component parts of the seal. The savings per year per pump were estimated to be $18,000.

Excessive axial motion can result in the loss of a seal. There are two types of axial motion to consider:

1. Thermal growth of the shaft versus casing
2. Movement from thrust bearing wear

Axial motion from thermal growth of equipment can cause the seal to run solid, resulting in failure. This is more likely to occur on large pieces of equipment. High thrust bearing wear might be expected on a high-speed boiler feed pump, where, over time, it could lead to seal failure.

A ship’s power plant, with low boiler demands, is a prime example of where axial shaft motion might occur. The greater the wear on the thrust bearing, the more axial travel the seal must handle. When the travel is excessive, the seal will run solid and fail. The cost to the ship’s power plant would be excessive.

Improved compressor performance
A synthetic fuel processing plant implemented a program to reduce maintenance costs and improve the reliability of two large compressors vital to plant operation. The gas compressors can reach process temperatures of 650 F and 370 psia respectively. Steam is used as a buffer fluid to prevent gas in the compressor from reaching atmosphere. Steam pressure is 10 psi above the process gas pressure. At these conditions, steam cutting of the existing sealing surfaces was occurring. Annual maintenance to replace the existing seal was $25,000. Annual bearing repair was $12,500. The annual cost of steam was $100,000.

Review of existing non-contact seal technology determined that it could be redesigned to handle high temperatures. Both compressors were converted to the new technology. Each compressor subsequently operated successfully for 10 years without any major work required. The $2,470,000 in savings over this time period reflected a significant payback from implementation of dry-gas sealing technology for high temperature services. The first compressor will be overhauled this year and the second compressor next year.

Conclusion
As shown by these short case study examples, substantial savings can be achieved by analyzing the reasons for short equipment life and applying the best solution. By the same token, improper specification, application and maintenance of critical components like mechanical seals can lead to reduced reliability and substantial losses for an operation. MT

James P. (Jim) Netzel is an engineering consultant based in Yorkville, IL. His 40+ years of experience in the design and application of mechanical seals includes 20 years of service as chief engineer at John Crane, in Morton Grove, IL. During his career, Netzel has authored (and presented) numerous technical papers through the International Pump Symposium, STLE, ASME, BHRA, AISE, SAE and various trade publications. He also has written chapters on seals and sealing systems for The Pump Handbook, The Centrifugal Pump Handbook and The Compressor Handbook. This article is based on a presentation delivered at MARTS 2008. E-mail: jpnetzel@comcast.net

References
1. Wallace, N.M, Redpath, D., and Netzel, J.P., 2000, “Toward Reduced Pump Operating Costs,” 17th International Pump Users Symposium Texas A&M, Houston, TX
2. Netzel, J.P., Redpath, D., and Wallace, N.M., 2001, “Toward Reduced Pump Operating Costs – Part 2 Avoiding Premature Failures,” 18th International Pump Users Symposium, Texas A&M, Houston, TX
3. Netzel, J.P., and Voigt, J., 2001, “Reducing Life Cycle Costs For Pumps Handling Cryogenic Fluids,” 18th International Pump Users Symposium, Texas A&M, Houston, TX
4. De Maria, R., and Peterson, K., “Improved Compressor Containment With Dry-Gas Seals,” Hydrocarbon Processing, December 1999

It’s insidious. Over time, equipment can move out of its original design conditions, greatly eroding performance and reliability.

To geologists, the term “creep” defines the slow displacement of earth materials along a down slope. Because the activity is so gradual, it typically can be detected only over a period of several years. For energy industry operators of highly engineered-toorder equipment, “process creep” defines the gradual transition of machinery out of its original design conditions. Over time, this trend erodes performance and reliability that can affect maintenance, productivity and safe operation.

In an industry where many critical rotating machines have been in service for 20 to 30 years or longer, considerable equipment is performing outside of its design parameters for various reasons. Processes may have changed as a result of catalyst improvements, changes in feedstock, government mandates or simply as responses to increased market demand. Whatever the reason, these changes directly affect the performance and reliability of the equipment.

The warning signs of “process creep” are gradual. The product, service, operating philosophy and maintenance history all have an impact on the severity of problems encountered. However, there are similarities among equipment problems that experienced engineers can identify quickly.

• In steam turbine equipment, corrosion and fouling will lead to decreased power.
• Turbocompressors may demand increased power while demonstrating decreased mass flow, loss of ratio pressure, increased vibration or speed fluctuations.
• Reciprocating compressors may experience excessive wear of rings, packings, riders or valves.
• Most noticeably, there simply may be shorter cycle times between shutdowns to replace parts.

While operators may be aware of the root causes, they may not be aware of the impact on the unit’s operation or the long-term impact on unit reliability. Most equipment operators are aware when a unit is not operating within the unit design, however, few are aware when they are operating beyond specification. When referring to this condition, OEMs are suggesting that a unit may be beyond design load and safe operating limits. Typically, there are warning and shutdown instruments to prevent this from occurring. Operating off original design point is not unique and it costs the client money in terms of lost efficiency and increased operating costs.

Proactive revamp solutions
During the past 10 years, there have been significant technological developments for turbo, steam and reciprocating products. Advanced computer design techniques, improved manufacturing processes and superior materials all have played roles in providing greater efficiencies and performance improvements for rotating equipment.

One solution to addressing the negative effects of process creep is a proactive revamp program designed to identify equipment issues before they become a problem. By revamping older units, a client can meet new or changing process requirements within the parameters of the existing equipment, providing a cost-effective and time-saving alternative to purchasing new equipment. Steps can be implemented to improve the safety, efficiency and reliability of the equipment, achieve lower cost of ownership and extend equipment life.

A proactive revamp program is intended to make the client aware of the benefits of upgrading the equipment in terms of increased production and improved reliability. Developing a value proposition can demonstrate a signifi- cant improvement in unit performance. This translates into increased production—which directly impacts an operation’s bottom line. Often, revamps pay for the initial investment in less than a year as a result of increased production. This is especially true in critical processes where installed equipment has been in service for many years.

While equipment operators may have considered revamping, or even replacing older units with new equipment, the step change in performance offered by improved technology is a fairly recent development—just in the past 10 years. Previously, the primary incentive to revamp a machine was to address significant changes in process conditions. More recently, technological developments in our product designs offer the opportunity to substantially improve efficiency in older installations. In the past, economics did not favor major changes to the equipment for process creep alone. It was easier and often cheaper to run off-design in inefficient ways.

In many cases, the installation benefits alone of a thoroughly evaluated proactive revamp can be large, bordering on the benefits of new hardware itself. This is largely because the unit is already in position and the necessary piping and support structure is installed. Installation of a new unit would more than likely result in major re-work of the piping and possibly the foundation and locations of surrounding auxiliary equipment. These benefits can be manifested in actual work scope costs, as well as a reduction in unit downtime.

Revamps based on knowledge
In Dresser-Rand’s case, we prepare proactive revamp programs for rotating equipment across the spectrum of upstream, midstream and downstream applications—for our own and other manufacturers’ equipment. The same benefits we propose for our legacy brand products are equally applied to all brands of similar products.

The first step in any planned revamp program is to gather information. We meet with the client on site, ask questions to get a better understanding of what the client needs and define any problems that may already exist. We then obtain data that specify performance requirements, and review the data and model performance.

To determine if equipment is being pushed beyond its normal operating conditions, we conduct a comparison with the appropriate operating conditions (current or planned) as plotted on the existing hardware’s performance curve. In addition to a review of historical documents, mechanical and rotordynamic reviews are performed to investigate issues that would indicate operation outside the design map.

In the case of turbo units, we employ our SmartPerf model analysis. This performance selection program for centrifugal compressors is a useful tool (because it eliminates the time and labor of a full-scale design review) to determine whether a revamp is appropriate in a particular situation. The revamp specialist can quickly investigate different options and determine which one best suits the client’s needs. With the information on the laptop, the revamp specialist can give the client a visual perception of the proposed revamp in a colorful, cross-section diagram of a compressor, complete with curves and data.

We then select operating conditions (or use client-provided data) that may maximize the flow through the compressor. Or, we may use the available driver power and develop an alternate aero solution (for a complete flow path or a mix-andmatch solution) to allow the unit to perform at those conditions. Budgetary pricing and a scope of recommendations are developed for the appropriate scenarios, and the information is provided to the client in a written proposal, teleconference, or face-to-face presentation.

The proactive revamp review process, which typically takes between one and three weeks, takes into consideration the entire process and all supporting equipment and systems such as gears, electric motors and control systems. The entire system is taken into consideration when evaluating a critical piece of equipment.

Proven success
This proactive approach to revamp solutions has already demonstrated success. On a recent syn gas train revamp, we developed the model and made some operating condition assumptions to optimize the unit’s performance. We then made an educational presentation based on our technology and findings. The client provided us with actual operating conditions with which to further refine our solution. As a result, the client ultimately revamped five casings at three facilities, thereby reducing power consumption, improving rotordynamics and increasing the uptime of the critical units.

In another client application, the SmartPerf revamp tool was used to determine the feasibility of increasing capacity at an ethylene production facility in Latin America. After intensely analyzing the design, reviewing hardware options and formulating revamp solutions, the Dresser-Rand team reviewed and selected the best revamping options for the facility’s charge gas, ethylene and propylene compressors. We then proposed the best options for maximizing production capacity by gaining a thorough understanding of the process and how the equipment could be revamped to best meet the client’s requirements.

While new equipment is always an option, in some cases the negative effects of process creep can be eliminated by a thorough, strategic revamp program. Depending on the scope, a revamp may average anywhere from 50 to 75% of the cost of new equipment, based on hardware alone. In addition, a revamp usually can be delivered more quickly than a new unit—and installation costs are reduced compared to new equipment.

The short-term benefits of a successful revamp are usually realized through the correction of minor, recurring reliability issues that may or may not have been directly related to off-design operation. The long-term benefits, however, typically translate into increased production, improved equipment availability, and increased profitability of the operation. MT

Doug Craig is director of Worldwide Revamps for Dresser- Rand, one of the largest suppliers of rotating equipment solutions to companies that operate in the worldwide oil, gas, petrochemical and process industries. Dresser-Rand operates manufacturing facilities in the United States, France, Germany, Norway and India and maintains a network of 27 service and support centers around the globe.

My company specializes in laser shaft alignment equipment. Recently, a prospective customer commented that he liked our equipment, but wondered when we were going to get “modern” about alignment tolerances. Generally accepted shaft alignment tolerances in industry use two criteria: Radial shaft centerline offsets at or near the coupling and angular shaft relationships. My customer’s opinion, based on an article he had read, is that shaft alignment tolerances should be based on offset values at the motor feet. If that’s the approach you’re taking, I would have to ask, “Do you feel lucky?”

Based on 28 years of experience in the alignment field, I have great concerns about using the foot value tolerance scheme. They include the following: 1. Companies will spend an enormous amount of time and labor going the “extra mile’ to achieve this standard. 2. Use of the foot value tolerance vs. angle and offset tolerances will NOT improve machinery reliability. 3. The foot value tolerance method will not improve bearing or seal life. 4. This foot value tolerance method will frustrate and discourage aligners who are motivated to perform precision maintenance, as very small measurement errors will result in large foot value fluctuations. 5. The foot value tolerance method breaks a basic measurement principle by amplifying measurement errors.

Basic shaft alignment
Every shaft rotates about an axis. In shaft alignment (see Fig. 1), the driven machine is usually considered as a stationary machine element. The rotational axis of the driven machine serves as the measurement datum (reference line). The driver is usually considered to be movable. The movable rotational axis is compared to that of the stationary. Shafts are considered misaligned when the two rotational axes are not colinear.

As shown in Fig. 2, misalignment can be represented by expressing the horizontal (x) or vertical (y) position of the movable rotational axis in relation to stationary shaft at various axial positions (z).

• Offset Misalignment is the actual radial position of the movable rotational center relative to the stationary center. If the shafts are not parallel, the offset misalignment is different at every axial position.
• Angular Misalignment is the slope relationship of the two shafts. The slope has a positive value if the offset values are more positive at the rear feet than at the coupling.

For example, using the graph in Fig. 2, we can see that:

Offset Misalignment = -20 at the coupling center,
0 at the front motor feet and +30 at the rear motor feet
Angular Misalignment = 20 mils/10” = 2.0/1”.

Measuring and correcting misalignment
Misalignment is measured with dial indicators or laser sensors as the shafts are rotated (see Fig. 3). The measurement planes are defined by the axial locations of the sensors. Correction planes are where shims can be added or removed.

Misalignment forces…
Misalignment, as illustrated in Fig. 4, creates forces at the coupling that are exerted on the shafts and, subsequently, on bearings.

The force effects of misalignment can be simplified by considering the misalignment as a simple lever. Misalignment at the coupling creates a moment of force acting on an effort arm. This will create a first class or second class lever with either the inboard or outboard bearing acting as a fulcrum. The length of the motor shaft between its bearings is the resistance arm.

Alignment tolerances…
It is very unlikely that perfect alignment is achievable— or is really that important. The objective of shaft alignment is to minimize radial forces by minimizing the offset at the coupling where power is transmitted. Further, we minimize axial forces by minimizing the slope relationship of the two shafts. The tolerances we recommend (see Fig. 5) are based on angle and offset values. You can choose to be more or less permissive.

Zone of good alignment using angular and offset tolerances…

The graph in Fig. 6 shows a zone of acceptance for a 3600 RPM machine using angular and offset tolerances. When the movable shaft axis falls completely within the shaded “bowtie,” acceptable alignment is achieved. There are a range of foot values that are acceptable.

The plotted line represents a shaft with offset misalignment of 1 mil (0.001”) at the coupling center. The slope is 0.1 mil/1”. This is a very good alignment!

Zone of good alignment using foot value tolerances…
The graph in Fig. 7 shows a zone of acceptance for a 3600 RPM machine using the foot value tolerances (inset box) referenced by the author of the article my customer had read—which is what compelled me to write this article. When the movable shaft axis falls completely within the shaded area, acceptable alignment is achieved. There is a very small range of acceptable alignments. Small measurement errors will make these tolerances hard to satisfy!

Measuring errors
It is impossible to produce error-free shaft alignment measurements, even with very resolute laser systems. Bearings must have clearances to assure free shaft rotation at varying temperatures. Machine shafts shift slightly within those clearances as the shafts are rotated in the measurement process. Therefore, the machine shafts are not perfectly repeatable. The effects of measurement errors are always minimized when the planes of interest are between the measurement planes. The effects of errors are amplified when the planes of interest are external to the measurement planes.

The effect of a 0.5 mil measurement error in one measurement plane is shown in Fig. 8. This creates an angular error of 0.5 mil in 6”, or 0.08 mil/1”. When the offset tolerance is applied at the center of the coupling, the error is small because that plane of interest is between measurement planes. When the tolerance is applied at the feet, however, the error is amplified because those planes are external to the measurement planes.

Conclusion
This article is intended to offer insight on shaft alignment tolerances for close coupled machines with flexible couplings. Precision alignment is important, but perfect alignment is not achievable—nor is it needed to reduce destructive coupling forces. Tolerances should be based on solid measurement principles and with the understanding that alignment measurements are only as repeatable as the machine shafts can repeat themselves during manual rotation.

Final thoughts…

• Understanding the rotational axes assists in making alignment corrections.
• Shafts will only “seek” co-linearity if they are coupled.
• Therefore, the objective of shaft alignment is to reduce coupling forces.
• The angle and offset tolerance method meets this objective.
• The actual angular and offset values that are acceptable are negotiable, but tolerances should not be made smaller than the machine shafts are capable of reproducing within bearing clearances.
• Small measurement errors are amplified when misalignment is calculated at the feet.
• Foot values should be used only to make alignment corrections.
• The required bearing clearances are larger as shaft diameters are larger.
• It is not that hard to achieve small foot values in a classroom with small demonstrators. In that environment, the bearing clearances are usually small and the amplified errors are also small because the feet are not that distant from the coupling.
• In real-world situations, small measurement errors produce foot value fluctuations that are greater than the stated foot value tolerance.
• Small measurement errors have little adverse effect when applying angular and offset tolerances.
• Consequently, when applying foot value tolerances in real world situations, the aligner must be either lucky or a liar to achieve his goal.

Perhaps this article can launch a discussion on industrywide shaft alignment standards. If others want to weigh in on this perspective, we would welcome your thoughts. MT

David Zdrojewski is founder and CEO of VibrAlign, Inc., headquartered in Richmond, VA. Telephone: (804) 379-2250; e-mail: david.z@vibralign.com

Providing unfailing operation from ball bearing failure requires looking at the subject the way experts do—with a cold eye on the factors leading to success and failure. Ignore them and the result could be production interruptions that cost your company time, money and reputation. Embrace them and you can look forward to a number of benefits, including fast product delivery and fatter profit margins.

When Goodrich Aerospace (GA) of Vermont opened the door to The Five Factors formula, good things rushed in. According to senior buyer Ross Lowery, long lead times for product delivery vanished, even “troublesome” parts were always in stock and the mind-bending exercise of price comparisons for various quantities of parts came to an end. GA thus expanded its contract with the formula originator, Intercontinental Bearing Supply Company (IBSCO). This Houstonbased supplier of ball bearings and services defines and utilizes The Five Factors for its clients as follows:

Factor One: Traceability…
Goodrich Aerospace is a Prime Contractor and OEM for the Federal government. Accurate and complete traceability is requisite, especially for bearings. Thus, if there’s a failure in the field, IBSCO’s ball bearing experts will be able to isolate those failures to a given stock number and then take necessary precautions. If it is shown to be a factory defect, IBSCO can do a recall of the specific bearing and minimize the impact. For example, a ball bearing in a piece of handheld equipment used in brain surgery heated up so much that doctors couldn’t handle the device. Diagnosis: a lubrication overfill from bearings acquired through a distributor. Traceability made it possible to pinpoint each of the bearing lots that went into the surgical tool for that particular customer.

On the other hand, ruling out a bearing malfunction can help lead to the real cause of a problem. For example, a client reported that a ball bearing was corroding fast. When a review of the suspect bearing lots showed no prior history of problems, the client shifted focus and discovered the culprit to be its own process that allowed etching fluid into the bearing housing assembly.

As industry relies more on high technology, these days, such situations are not isolated incidents. A problem in a manufacturer’s process creates a domino effect that can cause long-lasting harm to business relationships. Every part received and delivered by your bearing supplier should be accompanied with a Manufacturer’s Certification and lot number or traceability identifier. By providing the Manufacturer’s Certification, it makes the distributor 100% accountable for each bearing—from the point of entry to point of delivery. You ought to know what you are getting, whether you’re buying a $2 bearing or a $10 bearing.

Factor Two: Delivery…
Suppliers that “out-think” the customer are a step ahead. By being prepared, they can significantly reduce lead-times for delivery. This is critical given the fact that in today’s economic climate, delivery time can stretch from 30 to 55 weeks. With IBSCO’s help, Goodrich Aerospace has reduced its delivery time to days—or a few weeks at most—by obeying one rule: Managing inventory well is the key to managing delivery time.

IBSCO manages Goodrich Aerospace’s inventory. In doing so, GA’s needs are evaluated on a weekly basis with the help of a complex computer matrix and extensive data about sales cycles. As a result, short-term trend changes can be accommodated, such as those occasions when product is required sooner or later than anticipated.

That type of flexibility helped Goodrich Aerospace pause in its delivery of a braking system. Components needed to move forward on the project were delayed, forcing GA to hold back its own production. The change was accommodated without harm to the outcome. There have been other instances where replacement parts for military aircraft, for example, came in sooner than expected. Again, communication about what’s in the pipeline and safety stock for unique situations provided the solution.

Also, remember delivery is not just related to time. Procurement and Quality Control requirements are a significant issue. The U.S. government enforces the Defense Federal Acquisition Register Schedule (DFARS). This means all government-contract parts must be manufactured, purchased and built with raw materials from the United States market or a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) country. If DFARS compliance is required, all raw material and product components must be made from U.S. steel that can be traced back to the milling process. This has grown more difficult as the domestic steel industry has eroded, even as demand and manufacturing costs have increased.

Factor Three: Re-lubrication…
The ability to re-lubricate bearings serves a dual purpose. First, it restores the shelf life for product with expired use dates. The ability to re-lubricate expired bearings is essential to the aircraft and aerospace industry.

But the primary purpose is producing a custom lubricated bearing. This means while product specific to client needs is stocked, the commonly used sizes are onhand and available for lubing as needed.

Also, buying basic ball bearing stock at bargain prices allowed a medical firm to improve gross sales, even as the value of the U.S. dollar dropped. How? The currency imbalance meant overseas customers would eventually want to buy more American-made products because when the dollar value dropped so did the price. By stocking up on basic parts, the medical firm was well prepared when overseas demand for its equipment increased.

Factor Four: Custom Lubrication…
Goodrich Aerospace benefits when its provider buys large quantities of “vanilla” stock on its behalf—stock that later can be custom-lubed to GA specs. When incorporated in this type of purchase, OEMs like Goodrich Aerospace may get a better price than they would get from the factory they normally buy from.

Also, as technologies change, adjustments to lube specs may be required. Sometimes re-lubes are needed because the design specs change due to improvements in technology. Dental tools, for example, pose a particular challenge. They require lubricants that can withstand hot-steam cleansings after each use, yet are not so heavy that they promote heat build-up during operation.

Goodrich Aerospace chose IBSCO because of its expertise in custom lubrication blends, fill amounts and understanding the specific needs of the customer.

Factor Five: Certification…
A factory certification is essential because it includes lot numbers that allow the material to be traced all the way back to the smelting factory. Certification ensures that you’re getting the legitimate part you ordered. You need paperwork to make sure there’s a pedigree.

Lubricants, as well as ball bearings, must be documented. The original factory certification papers must include a lot number and where it was made. Substantial time can be saved if your supplier is factory authorized to do re-lubes. Without this authorization, manufacturers can expect to wait 30 weeks for delivery of a full-warranty product. You need certification detailing what work was done before it was shipped to you. Also, it is essential that the factory scrutinize the processes of the distributor that has been authorized to do full-warranty work—twice a year.

When it comes to ball bearings, those who pay attention to these Five Factors of Excellence should have no trouble rolling along. MT

Jack O’Donnell has spent 37 years in the bearing business. He has served as president of IBSCO since 1998. IBSCO is a distributor of NHBB, NMB, IJK, Barden and Timken products. Telephone: (800) 231-6480; e-mail: jack.odonnell@ibsco.com

For decades, maintenance professionals have advocated and used information management systems, planned maintenance activities, emphasized preventive maintenance and assessed equipment utilization to eliminate non-essential assets (reducing numbers of equipment). These professionals also have been aware of the need for operator and mechanic training and, to some extent, decentralizing asset responsibility. Accordingly, they have been striving to build operator-ownership of equipment through basic care.

That said, specialists in asset management and reliability have spent years in various relevant pursuits. Over the past decade, these pursuits have been joined by an approach called Operator-Driven Reliability, or ODR. Yet, while commendable in its aims, ODR is not capable of standing alone. It must be supported by related endeavors that involve management philosophies and “buy-in” from all levels—including those within maintenance. In and of itself, ODR is not an off-the-shelf approach that can be implemented on short notice.

Cooperative efforts needed
Any write-up or technical presentation would be incomplete if we neglected to recognize our limitations. Thus, we know that in the “real world” even the most competent reliability professional is rarely in a position to implement best practices without the cooperation of others. There always will be a management component involved. Regrettably, others (including managers) sometimes pursue only short-term interests. Short-term interests are destined to be repair-focused, whereas long-term interests are (generally) reliability-focused.

Consistently achieving good performance and high profitability requires long-term pursuits. It calls for industrial enterprises to totally abandon their repair focus and unequivocally embrace the reliability-focused approach. To what extent this focus has been transferred or carried over into your equipment repairs can be determined by carefully reading the following point-by-point summary based on the philosophy of W. Edwards Deming.

It is especially important that modern, reliability-focused plants be consistent in adhering to a well-formulated or even formalized management philosophy. Continually adhering to such a philosophy is an indispensable requirement if tangible and lasting equipment reliability improvement results are expected from ODR.

Acknowledging Deming’s work
Adapting the thinking of W. Edwards Deming, the noted American statistician whose teachings on quality and profitability were often neglected at home, but venerated in post-WW II Japan, we give the following experience-based advice to the manager whose facility would profit from equipment uptime extension and failure risk reduction. It is a guide that not only will strengthen your traditional reliability efforts, but also help lead you to where you want to go in your journey to Operator-Driven Reliability. While these points, in various iterations and combinations, may have appeared previously in this publication, their importance can’t be overstated. Suffice it to say, for reliabilityfocused professionals, it’s impossible to consult this type of “road map” too often.

• Create constancy of purpose for improvement of product, equipment and service. Implement whatever organizational setup is needed to move from being a repair-focused facility to a reliabilityfocused facility. Do this by teaching your reliability workforce to view every maintenance event as an opportunity to upgrade and letting the most competent equipment repair shop assist in defining these opportunities.
• Take time to determine if the OEM or the competent non-OEM repair shop is in a better position to assist you in achieving plant uptime and profitability goals. Realize that this determination may well be outside the normal limits of a purchasing group. In fact, a Purchasing Department may have made it a practice to award contracts only on the basis of tangible first-cost and schedule commitments.

• Never allow costly experimentation by anyone in your workforce. Do not let them “re-invent the wheel,” when there is proof that a good technical text or an experienced mentor or shop could point the way to a proven solution.
• Unless your problem pump or other machine is indeed the only one in the world delivering a particular product from point “X” to point “Y,” insist on determining the operating and failure experience of satisfactory (!) machines, pumps or mechanical seals elsewhere. Never accept an “alliance” partner’s claim that disclosing such experience violates ethics or the law, or that this information is in any way confidential and proprietary.
• Upgrading must result in downtime avoidance and/or maintenance cost reductions. Insist on being apprised of both feasibility and cost justification of suitable equipment upgrade measures.
• Adopt a new philosophy that makes mistakes and negativism unacceptable. Ask some serious questions when a critical process machinery repair is done incorrectly three times in a row.
• Ask the responsible worker to certify that his or her work meets the quality and accuracy requirements stipulated in your work procedures and checklists.
• Again, end the practice of awarding business to outside shops and service providers on price alone. Ask your reliability staff to use, acquire or develop, technical specifications for critical or high-reliability components. These specifications must be used by your Purchasing Department. Accept less costly (or “cheaper”) substitutes only if it can be proven that their life-cycle costs are lower than those of the high-reliability and lower failure risk components specified by a competent reliability professional.
• Constantly and forever improve the system of maintenance quality—and improve the responsiveness of your outsourced services providers. You must groom in-house reliability specialists competent to gage the adequacy of all maintenance quality and of the various outsourcing services.

Insist on daily interaction of process/operating, mechanical/ maintenance, and reliability/technical workforces (the “PMT” concept). Institutionalize root cause failure analysis and make joint RCFA (root cause failure analysis) sessions mandatory for these three job functions. Do not accept this interaction to exist via e-mail alone!

• Institute a vigorous program of training and education. As an example, for decades, the industrial mechanic/machinist has been allowed to find and replace a defective pump component. Unfortunately, he or she has thus become a skilled parts-changer and many machinists, mechanics and technicians have become entirely repair-focused. Train your engineers, technicians, maintenance workforce—and operators—to become reliability- focused! Let a competent repair shop assist you in achieving these training goals and do accept the premise that repair-focused plants will go out of existence.
• Require your reliability professionals to develop their own training plans. Insist on stewardship and on reaching the training goals. Subsidize this training!
• Institute leadership. Give guidance and direction. Impart resourcefulness to your reliability professionals. Become that leader or appoint that leader. The leader must be in a position to delineate the approach to be followed by the reliability professional in, say, achieving extended pump run lengths or general equipment uptime extension—the subject of thousands of articles and hundreds of books!
• Drive out fear. Initiate guidance and action steps that show personal ethics and evenhandedness that will be valued and respected by your workforce.
• Break down barriers between staff areas. Never tolerate the ill-advised competition among staff groups that causes them to withhold pertinent information from each other.
• Eliminate numerical quotas. No reasonable person will be able to solve 20 elusive equipment problems in a 40-hour week. If a problem is worth solving, it’s worth spending time to solve the problem. Until you have groomed a competent and well-trained failure analysis team, consider engaging an outside expert on an incentive-pay basis.
• Regardless of who’s involved— your shop or an outside shop— remove barriers to pride of workmanship. Don’t convey the message that jobs must be done quickly. Instead, instill the drive to do it right the first time and every time. To that end, work with companies and individuals that will utilize the physical tools, written procedures, work process definitions and checklists found at Best-of-Class companies. To the extent that these tools and procedures would benefit your company, take steps to make them available to your staff.
• Institute both fairness and accountability at all levels. As a manager, take the lead. Eliminate roadblocks and impediments to progress. Realize that what you are trying to do—increasing plant-wide equipment MTBF— has long since been accomplished elsewhere. You, too, can achieve this goal.

In summary, then, accept the fact that the quality and dependability of any business entity or shop is only as good as the knowledge base its personnel will allow. The various aspects of people based quality and dependability pertain to contractors and inhouse staff—that means everybody, including engineering, maintenance and operations. They pertain to your shop, just as they do to the OEM and non-OEM shop. This knowledge base changes over time; therefore it needs to be periodically re-assessed.

In a recent series of articles, we used the term “Competent Pump Repair Shop” (CPRS) to indicate that your diligent efforts to find and work only with the competent ones will be rewarded. Once you have taken steps to work with diligent and capable outsiders, all of your reliability initiatives—including those related to Operator-Driven Reliability— will bear more fruit. MT

Contributing editor Heinz Bloch is the author of 17 comprehensive textbooks and over 340 other publications on machinery reliability and lubrication. He can be contacted at: hpbloch@mchsi.com.

In the United States, motors consume approximately 75% of the electricity in the industrial sector. As such, zeroing in on motors and motor systems at your plant or facility is a great first step toward reducing your energy costs. A range of efficiency programs dedicated to motor-related efficiency are available throughout the U.S. and Canada. The types of programs can range from prescriptive programs, which provide rebates or other financial incentives for the purchase of NEMA Premium motors, to technical assistance programs, which provide technical expertise or funding to hire outside technical expertise. Often, program types overlap, with several types incorporated into one framework that best suits the goal of the specific efficiency program.

In much the same way as the efficiency industry budget is growing, so too is the number of programs that focus on NEMA Premiumefficiency motors and adjustable speed drives (ASD). In 2007, more than 170 motor and ASD programs were available in the U. S. and Canada. These programs fall into a number of categories, including specifically:

• Prescriptive
• Upstream
• Custom Retrofit
• New Construction
• Standard Performance Contract (SPC)
• Financial Assistance
• Technical Assistance
• Education/Awareness
• Motor Management or MDM Materials
• Other

For more information about programs in your area, download the CEE 2007 Program Summary: Energy efficiency Incentive Programs for Premium Efficiency Motors & Adjustable Speed Drives in the U.S. and Canada (http:// www.motorsmatter.org/). If getting started in the direction of energy efficiency seems like a daunting task, fear not! There are resources available to help you, and they're free! The Motor Decisions Matter (MDM) Campaign and its sponsoring organizations have developed several tools and resources that you can use to develop a motor management plan that meets your company's needs. This information can also lead to partnerships with your local sales and service center, vendor, electric utility or other energy-efficiency representatives who are wellpositioned to offer added support. MT

The Motor Decisions Matter campaign is managed by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, a North American nonprofit organization that promotes energy-saving products, equipment and technologies. For further information about MDM, contact Ted Jones at tjones@cee1.org or (617) 589-3949, ext. 230.